Organization ontology
We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After some checking we were unable to find an existing ontology that precisely met our needs and so developed this generic core, intended to be extensible to particular domains of use. The ontology is documented at [1] and some discussion on the requirements and design process are at [2]. W3C have been kind enough to offer to host the ontology within the W3C namespace [3]. This does not imply that W3C endorses the ontology, nor that it is part of any standards process at this stage. They are simply providing a stable place for posterity. Any changes to the ontology involving removal of, or modification to, existing terms (but not necessarily addition of new terms) will be announced to these lists. We suggest that any discussion take place on the public-lod list to avoid further cross-posting. Dave, Jeni, John [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html [2] http://www.epimorphics.com/web/category/category/developers/organization-ontology [3] http://www.w3.org/ns/org# (available in RDF/XML, N3, Turtle via conneg or append .rdf/.n3/.ttl)
Re: Organization ontology
Dave, We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. Brilliant! I submitted it now to Sindice [1] and 'registered' the org prefix in prefix.cc [2] - you might want to support it by voting it up ;) Cheers, Michael [1] http://sindice.com/search?q=domain%3Awww.w3.org+Core+organization+ontologyq t=term [2] http://prefix.cc/org -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html From: Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 08:50:32 +0100 To: Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org, public-egov...@w3.org public-egov...@w3.org Subject: Organization ontology Resent-From: public-egov...@w3.org public-egov...@w3.org Resent-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 07:51:09 + We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After some checking we were unable to find an existing ontology that precisely met our needs and so developed this generic core, intended to be extensible to particular domains of use. The ontology is documented at [1] and some discussion on the requirements and design process are at [2]. W3C have been kind enough to offer to host the ontology within the W3C namespace [3]. This does not imply that W3C endorses the ontology, nor that it is part of any standards process at this stage. They are simply providing a stable place for posterity. Any changes to the ontology involving removal of, or modification to, existing terms (but not necessarily addition of new terms) will be announced to these lists. We suggest that any discussion take place on the public-lod list to avoid further cross-posting. Dave, Jeni, John [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html [2] http://www.epimorphics.com/web/category/category/developers/organization-ontol ogy [3] http://www.w3.org/ns/org# (available in RDF/XML, N3, Turtle via conneg or append .rdf/.n3/.ttl)
Re: Organization ontology
Dave Reynolds wrote: We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After some checking we were unable to find an existing ontology that precisely met our needs and so developed this generic core, intended to be extensible to particular domains of use. The ontology is documented at [1] and some discussion on the requirements and design process are at [2]. W3C have been kind enough to offer to host the ontology within the W3C namespace [3]. This does not imply that W3C endorses the ontology, nor that it is part of any standards process at this stage. They are simply providing a stable place for posterity. Any changes to the ontology involving removal of, or modification to, existing terms (but not necessarily addition of new terms) will be announced to these lists. We suggest that any discussion take place on the public-lod list to avoid further cross-posting. Fantastic! just what I need v glad to see it tied in with VCard, GR and FOAF, all 3 of which I'm using currently with a custom Ontology to handle the Organisation stuff, but this is much better! Great work, Nathan Dave, Jeni, John [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html [2] http://www.epimorphics.com/web/category/category/developers/organization-ontology [3] http://www.w3.org/ns/org# (available in RDF/XML, N3, Turtle via conneg or append .rdf/.n3/.ttl)
Re: Organization ontology
On 06/01/2010 10:26 AM, Michael Hausenblas wrote: Dave, We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. Brilliant! I submitted it now to Sindice [1] and 'registered' the org prefix in prefix.cc [2] - you might want to support it by voting it up ;) Cheers, Michael [1] http://sindice.com/search?q=domain%3Awww.w3.org+Core+organization+ontologyq t=term [2] http://prefix.cc/org Nice. I've added it to CKAN: http://www.ckan.net/package/org_ontology Cheers, Christophe -- Dr. Christophe Guéret (cgue...@few.vu.nl) http://www.few.vu.nl/~cgueret/ Postdoc working on SOKS (http://www.few.vu.nl/soks) Knowledge Representation Reasoning Group Computational Intelligence Group Department of Computer Science, AI VU University Amsterdam attachment: cgueret.vcf
Re: Organization ontology
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/06/10 08:50, Dave Reynolds wrote: We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. Looks good Dave. This is fairly close to AIISO [1], which I'm using for our university structure. I'll ping them to suggest adding subproperty mappings. Any changes to the ontology involving removal of, or modification to, existing terms (but not necessarily addition of new terms) will be announced to these lists. We suggest that any discussion take place on the public-lod list to avoid further cross-posting. Suggestion: skos provides property and propertyTransitive [2] as a transitive variant. I find this pattern useful for expressing the ground facts (dept unitOf faculty) and woolier inferences for navigation (dept unitOfTransitive univ). Damian [1] http://vocab.org/aiiso/schema [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#sectransitivebroader -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkwE1PIACgkQAyLCB+mTtyn15gCcD+GjDeafJ+6cNCgNZy9/KfkQ QSUAoIPUwK/PWA53L7VbqeFupCRSncUG =L8t0 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Organization ontology
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 09:26 +0100, Michael Hausenblas wrote: Dave, We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. Brilliant! I submitted it now to Sindice [1] and 'registered' the org prefix in prefix.cc [2] Thanks Michael. - you might want to support it by voting it up ;) Done :) Dave
Re: Organization ontology
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 11:04 +0200, Christophe Guéret wrote: On 06/01/2010 10:26 AM, Michael Hausenblas wrote: Dave, We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. Brilliant! I submitted it now to Sindice [1] and 'registered' the org prefix in prefix.cc [2] - you might want to support it by voting it up ;) Cheers, Michael [1] http://sindice.com/search?q=domain%3Awww.w3.org+Core+organization+ontologyq t=term [2] http://prefix.cc/org Nice. I've added it to CKAN: http://www.ckan.net/package/org_ontology Thanks. Great so see how easy it is to get such a vocabulary registered these days. Just mention it here and people leap to help you make it more widely discoverable! Dave
Re: Organization ontology
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 10:37 +0100, Damian Steer wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/06/10 08:50, Dave Reynolds wrote: We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. Looks good Dave. This is fairly close to AIISO [1], which I'm using for our university structure. I'll ping them to suggest adding subproperty mappings. Ah. I missed that one, despite having tried all the ontology search tools I could think of. Thanks for pointing it out. Any changes to the ontology involving removal of, or modification to, existing terms (but not necessarily addition of new terms) will be announced to these lists. We suggest that any discussion take place on the public-lod list to avoid further cross-posting. Suggestion: skos provides property and propertyTransitive [2] as a transitive variant. I find this pattern useful for expressing the ground facts (dept unitOf faculty) and woolier inferences for navigation (dept unitOfTransitive univ). Yes, that's a good suggestion. I've put that on list to add. Cheers, Dave
Re: Organization ontology
Hi Dave Great resource indeed. One remark, one suggestion, and one question :) Remark : Just found out what seems to be a mistake in the N3 file. org:role a owl:ObjectProperty, rdf:Property; rdfs:label role@en; rdfs:domain org:Membership; rdfs:range foaf:Agent; ... I guess one should read :rdfs:range org:Role Suggestion : I always feel uneasy with having class and property just distinct by upper/lower case. Suggest to change the property to org:hasRole Question : Will RDF-XML file available at some point? Keep the good work going Best Bernard 2010/6/1 Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After some checking we were unable to find an existing ontology that precisely met our needs and so developed this generic core, intended to be extensible to particular domains of use. The ontology is documented at [1] and some discussion on the requirements and design process are at [2]. W3C have been kind enough to offer to host the ontology within the W3C namespace [3]. This does not imply that W3C endorses the ontology, nor that it is part of any standards process at this stage. They are simply providing a stable place for posterity. Any changes to the ontology involving removal of, or modification to, existing terms (but not necessarily addition of new terms) will be announced to these lists. We suggest that any discussion take place on the public-lod list to avoid further cross-posting. Dave, Jeni, John [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html [2] http://www.epimorphics.com/web/category/category/developers/organization-ontology [3] http://www.w3.org/ns/org# (available in RDF/XML, N3, Turtle via conneg or append .rdf/.n3/.ttl) -- Bernard Vatant Senior Consultant Vocabulary Data Engineering Tel: +33 (0) 971 488 459 Mail: bernard.vat...@mondeca.com Mondeca 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France Web:http://www.mondeca.com Blog:http://mondeca.wordpress.com
Re: Organization ontology
Hi Bernard, On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 17:03 +0200, Bernard Vatant wrote: Hi Dave Great resource indeed. One remark, one suggestion, and one question :) Remark : Just found out what seems to be a mistake in the N3 file. org:role a owl:ObjectProperty, rdf:Property; rdfs:label role@en; rdfs:domain org:Membership; rdfs:range foaf:Agent; ... I guess one should read :rdfs:range org:Role Oops, thanks, will get that fixed shortly (hopefully tonight or tomorrow). Suggestion : I always feel uneasy with having class and property just distinct by upper/lower case. Suggest to change the property to org:hasRole Names are always hard! Some people have commented that I should just use nouns (e.g. see comments on [1]). My rationale has been that some relations (e.g. unitOf, subOrganizationOf) really need to have a direction indicated and so use phrases for those. Then for things that are clearly attributes use simple nouns. Other cases are grey. I've thought of the properties of org:Membership as being attributes of an n-ary relation and so gone for nouns there. This helps to avoid confusion with the direct relations - if I used org:hasRole then I ought to use org:hasMember which would clash with the short cut use of org:memberOf. Question : Will RDF-XML file available at some point? It is. Use content negotiation: curl -H Accept: application/rdf+xml http://www.w3.org/ns/org# or point your browser at http://www.w3.org/ns/org.rdf Cheers, Dave [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/web/wiki/organization-ontology-second-draft#comment-60
Re: Cool URIs (was: Re: Java Framework for Content Negotiation)
Hi Angelo, On 31 May 2010, at 10:32, Angelo Veltens wrote: DBpedia has copied the approach from D2R Server. The person who came up with it and designed and implemented it for D2R Server is me. This was back in 2006, before the term Linked Data was even coined, so I didn't exactly have a lot of experience to rely on. With what I know today, I would never, ever again choose that approach. Use 303s if you must; but please do me a favour and add that generic document, and please do me a favour and name the different variants foo.html and foo.rdf rather than page/foo and data/foo. Thanks a lot for sharing your experience with me. I will follow your advice. So if i'm going to implement what is described in section 4.2. i have to - serve html at http://www.example.org/doc/alice if text/html wins content negotiation and set content-location header to http://www.example.org/doc/alice.html - serve rdf/xml at http://www.example.org/doc/alice if application/ rdf+xml wins content negotiation and set content-location header to http://www.example.org/doc/alice.rdf - serve html at http://www.example.org/doc/alice.html always - serve rdf/xml at http://www.example.org/doc/alice.rdf always Right? Correct! By the way: Is there any defined behavior for the client, what to do with the content-location information? Do Browsers take account of it? Not really. It's generally recommended to put the format-specific URIs into the Content-Location header, but I don't think that clients really use that information much (neither in Linked Data nor in other contexts where content negotiation is used). So I'd still recommend using the header, but more important is perhaps to have the format- specific URIs linked from the HTML and RDF representations, so that users of the data -- both in the RDF form and in the HTML form -- can discover a URI where they can reliably retrieve a representation in a specific format. The DBpedia guys are probably stuck with my stupid design forever because changing it now would break all sorts of links. But the thing that really kills me is how lots of newbies copy that design just because they saw it on DBpedia and therefore think that it must be good. I think the problem is not only, that dbpedia uses that design, but that it is described in many examples as a possible or even cool solution, e.g. http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/pub/LinkedDataTutorial/ (one of the first documents i stumbled upon) If we want to prevent people from using that design it should be clarified that and why it is a bad choice. Yes, that's a good point. Best, Richard Kind regards and thanks for your patience, Angelo
Re: Organization ontology
Dave Reynolds schrieb: We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. Great! This comes in due time :-) I was just looking for something like that. I'll take a deeper look at it. Kind regards, Angelo
Re: Cool URIs (was: Re: Java Framework for Content Negotiation)
Hi, - serve html at http://www.example.org/doc/alice.html always - serve rdf/xml at http://www.example.org/doc/alice.rdf always Right? Correct! I want to throw in another question, are there currently arguments for or against the two alternatives: http://www.example.org/doc/alice.html vs http://www.example.org/doc/html/alice and the same for .rdf vs rdf/ Best Bernhard
Re: Organization ontology
Michael Hausenblas wrote: Dave, We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. Brilliant! I submitted it now to Sindice [1] and 'registered' the org prefix in prefix.cc [2] - you might want to support it by voting it up ;) Cheers, Michael [1] http://sindice.com/search?q=domain%3Awww.w3.org+Core+organization+ontologyq t=term [2] http://prefix.cc/org Dave, seeAlso: 1. http://uriburner.com/fct/facet.vsp?cmd=loadfsq_id=45 -- here its entity ranked 2. http://lod.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2Fns%2Forg%23Organization -- I suspect the ranking hasn't occurred so I used the URI lookup option . BTW - adding rdfs:isDefinedBy relations would make the ontology much more navigable via the interfaces above. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Call For Papers - TAAI 2010, November 18-20 (Taiwan)
=== Call for Papers TAAI 2010 Conference on Technologies and Applications of Artificial Intelligence Hsinchu, Taiwan, November 18-20, 2010 http://taai2010.nctu.edu.tw/ Important Dates: * Paper submissions due: June 30, 2010. * Notification of acceptance: July 30, 2010. * Camera-ready final papers due: August 23, 2010 * Tournament registration due: September 1, 2010. Introduction The 2010 Conference on Technologies and Applications of Artificial Intelligence (TAAI 2010) is the 15th annual conference sponsored by the Taiwanese Association for AI and one of the most important annual academic meetings on Artificial Intelligence in Taiwan. The conference will be held in Hsinchu, Taiwan, on November 18-20, 2010. The purpose of this conference is to bring together scientists, engineers and practitioners in different disciplines and researchers to present and exchange ideas, results and experiences in the area of AI technologies and applications. In particular, to showcase the intelligence of computers with AI, the conference will host the events of computer game tournaments for games such as Go, Chinese Chess, Connect6, etc. The 2010 World Computer Chinese Chess Championship will be jointly held with the conference. The conference also includes workshops, panels and technical sessions with refereed papers from the AI research community. High quality research papers are solicited on the topics of particular interest include, but are not limited to: * Agents * AI Applications * AI Architectures * Computer Games * Computer Vision * Data Mining * Genetic Algorithms * Information Retrieval and Integration * Intelligent Environment * Intelligent e-learning * Logics in AI * Knowledge-Based Systems * Machine Learning * Mobile Intelligence * Knowledge Representation * Natural Language Processing * Probabilistic and Uncertain Reasoning * Planning * Robotics * Semantic Web * Social Computing * Speech Recognition and Synthesis * Problem Solving and Search * Web Intelligence Keynote Speakers This conference invites some prestigious researchers as keynote speakers, such as Professor Tom Mitchell as follows. Tom M. Mitchell His research interests include computer science, machine learning, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience. Professor Mitchell received many honors, such as University Professor at Carnegie-Mellon University in 2009, Elected Fellow of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 2008, Elected Fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) in 1990, and NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award in 1984. Paper Submission Submit your paper(s) at the paper submission site http://taai2010.nctu.edu.tw/. Each submission should be regarded as an undertaking that, if the paper is accepted, at least one of the authors must attend the conference to present the work. Submission format will be announced in the conference web site. Submission format will be announced on the conference web site. Paper Publications == Accepted papers will be published in the proceeding. The proceeding will be published by IEEE Computer Society Conference Publishing Services (IEEE CPS) and will be indexed by IEEE digital library. Accepted papers will be selected for publication in a special issue of Journal of Information Science and Engineering (SCI indexed). Workshops = The workshops should address topics relevant to the themes of this conference. Please submit proposals of workshops to Workshop Co-Chairs (sj...@mail.ndhu.edu.tw or ypc...@cs.nctu.edu.tw) by April 1, 2010. Panels == The panels should address timely topics relevant to the themes of the conference. Please submit proposals to the Conference Co-Chairs (chun...@iis.sinica.edu.tw or i...@cs.nctu.edu.tw) by July 30, 2010. Organizing Committee Honorary Chair: Chung-Yu Wu, Taiwan Advisory Committee: Jaap van den Herik, Nederlands Hong-Yuan Liao, Taiwan Chin-Teng Lin, Taiwan Vincenzo Loia, Italy Nikhil R. Pal, India Conference Chairs: Chun-Nan Hsu, Taiwan I-Chen Wu, Taiwan Program Chairs: Irwin King, Hong Kong Yuh-Jye Lee, Taiwan Workshop Chairs: Ying-Ping Chen, Taiwan Shi-Jim Yen, Taiwan Local Chairs: Ying-Ping Chen, Taiwan Wen-Chih Peng, Taiwan Publication Chairs: Jiun-Long Huang, Taiwan. Ching-Hsien Hsu, Taiwan. Publicity Chairs: Mong-Fong Horng, National Kaohsiung Univ., Taiwan. Yuh-Jyh Hu, National Chiao Tung Univ., Taiwan. Registration Chair and Financial Chair: Shou-De Lin, Taiwan. =
New Entity Descriptor Document Formats
All, You may have picked this up from my tweets earlier today. We can now produce Atom (using OData's Atom+Feed dialect) based Descriptor Documents for Entities in DBpedia, LOD Cloud Cache, and any other Virtuoso based RDF store. Implications: Ultimately (once we iron some issues with existing 3rd party OData clients), transparent OData application access and exposure for all Descriptor Docs of all the LOD Cloud Cache and DBpedia Entities. Naturally, we encourage other RDF store providers to emulate what we've done re. building a bridge to the burgeoning OData realm (publication and consumption). Business of Linked Data Note: Microsoft has a market place for OData sets in place called Dallas. In a nutshell, they want to make the process of curating and maintaining data sets sustainable via a compensation system. All you do is get your stall in their pre-furnished (till included) Data Mart :-) Links: 1. http://bit.ly/cKQAEV -- SPARQL Describe based Descriptor Doc (in OData's Atom Format) for Entity: http://dbpedia.org/resource/London 2. http://bit.ly/9PFtSD -- Ditto but in OData's JSON format 3 http://dbpedia.org/data/London.atom -- Actual Descriptor Doc URL (OData's Atom Format) for Entity: http://dbpedia.org/resource/London 4. http://bit.ly/9KcUmi -- Descriptor Doc for the GoodRelations based Offer: http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/id/entity/http/oreilly.com/catalog/9780596804367#Offering associated with this O'Reilly web page: http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596804367 . -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Representing relation between posts
Hi all, is there a preferred way to represent the relation between posts in different Social Sites? For example, it is now pretty common to post to Twitter, and this post becomes a post in my wall in Facebook. It would be nice to represent the relation between these two posts. I don't think this can be represented directly using SIOC, for instance. Cheers D --- Prof. Daniel Schwabe Dep. de Informática, PUC-Rio R. M. de S. Vicente, 225, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22453-900 Tel. +55 21 3114 1500 x. 4356
Re: Representing relation between posts
Daniel Schwabe wrote: Hi all, is there a preferred way to represent the relation between posts in different Social Sites? For example, it is now pretty common to post to Twitter, and this post becomes a post in my wall in Facebook. It would be nice to represent the relation between these two posts. I don't think this can be represented directly using SIOC, for instance. sioc:sibling ?
Re: Representing relation between posts
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote: Daniel Schwabe wrote: Hi all, is there a preferred way to represent the relation between posts in different Social Sites? For example, it is now pretty common to post to Twitter, and this post becomes a post in my wall in Facebook. It would be nice to represent the relation between these two posts. I don't think this can be represented directly using SIOC, for instance. sioc:sibling ? But they're not really siblings, they're the same post in different views. I'd be tempted to use: skos:closeMatch or skos:exactMatch. cheers stuart
Re: Representing relation between posts
On 2010/06/02, at 7:20, Daniel Schwabe wrote: Hi all, is there a preferred way to represent the relation between posts in different Social Sites? For example, it is now pretty common to post to Twitter, and this post becomes a post in my wall in Facebook. It would be nice to represent the relation between these two posts. I don't think this can be represented directly using SIOC, for instance. dc:source ? I can't really believe that SIOC does not have this feature. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Representing relation between posts
On Jun 1, 2010, at 6:22 PM, Stuart A. Yeates wrote: On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote: Daniel Schwabe wrote: Hi all, is there a preferred way to represent the relation between posts in different Social Sites? For example, it is now pretty common to post to Twitter, and this post becomes a post in my wall in Facebook. It would be nice to represent the relation between these two posts. I don't think this can be represented directly using SIOC, for instance. sioc:sibling ? But they're not really siblings, they're the same post in different views. I'd be tempted to use: skos:closeMatch or skos:exactMatch. cheers stuart FWIW, we are about to announce an ontology for images, which has a property mw:facsimileOf for just this kind of 'exact copy' relationship (eg a reproduction of a photograph of a painting.) Maybe there is need for a generalization of this notion to other media. Pat Hayes IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola(850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Re: Representing relation between posts
On 02/06/10 00:17 - 02/06/10, KangHao Lu (Kenny) wrote: On 2010/06/02, at 7:20, Daniel Schwabe wrote: Hi all, is there a preferred way to represent the relation between posts in different Social Sites? For example, it is now pretty common to post to Twitter, and this post becomes a post in my wall in Facebook. It would be nice to represent the relation between these two posts. I don't think this can be represented directly using SIOC, for instance. dc:source ? I can't really believe that SIOC does not have this feature. Well, I could not find it, hence my question. Hopefully the SIOC Gurus may have an answer... As Stuart pointed out, we want to capture the fact that it is the same post, but within different contexts. In many cases, they will be generated automatically... Cheers D --- Daniel Schwabe Dept. de Informatica, PUC-Rio Tel:+55-21-3527 1500 r. 4356R. M. de S. Vicente, 225 Fax: +55-21-3527 1530 Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22453-900, Brasil http://www.inf.puc-rio.br/~dschwabe
Re: Organization ontology
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com wrote: We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After some checking we were unable to find an existing ontology that precisely met our needs and so developed this generic core, intended to be extensible to particular domains of use. [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html I think this is great, but I'm a little worried that a number of Western (and specifically Westminister) assumptions may have been built into it. What would be great would be to see a handful of different organisations (or portions of them) from different traditions modelled. Maybe: * The tripartite system at the top of US government, which seems pretty complex to me, with former Presidents apparently retaining some control after they leave office * The governance model of the Vatican City and Catholic Church * The Asian royalty model, in which an informal royalty commonly appears to sit above a formal constitution cheers stuart
Re: Organization ontology
Good point! Sent from my iPhone On 02/06/2010, at 15:06, Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com wrote: We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After some checking we were unable to find an existing ontology that precisely met our needs and so developed this generic core, intended to be extensible to particular domains of use. [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html I think this is great, but I'm a little worried that a number of Western (and specifically Westminister) assumptions may have been built into it. What would be great would be to see a handful of different organisations (or portions of them) from different traditions modelled. Maybe: * The tripartite system at the top of US government, which seems pretty complex to me, with former Presidents apparently retaining some control after they leave office * The governance model of the Vatican City and Catholic Church * The Asian royalty model, in which an informal royalty commonly appears to sit above a formal constitution cheers stuart
[no subject]
Or, in the U.S. we could just partition a new web with top level domains reflective of the agencies and departments financed by our tax dollars. Open Gov!Michael A. NortonFrom: Chris Beer ch...@e-beer.net.auTo: Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.comCc: Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org; "public-egov...@w3.org" public-egov...@w3.orgSent: Tue, June 1, 2010 10:22:12 PMSubject: Re: Organization ontology Good point!Sent from my iPhoneOn 02/06/2010, at 15:06, "Stuart A. Yeates" syea...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com wrote: We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After some checking we were unable to find an existing ontology that precisely met our needs and so developed this generic core, intended to be extensible to particular domains of use. [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html I think this is great, but I'm a little worried that a number of Western (and specifically Westminister) assumptions may have been built into it. What would be great would be to see a handful of different organisations (or portions of them) from different traditions modelled. Maybe: * The tripartite system at the top of US government, which seems pretty complex to me, with former Presidents apparently retaining some control after they leave office * The governance model of the Vatican City and Catholic Church * The Asian royalty model, in which an informal royalty commonly appears to sit above a formal constitution cheers stuart
Re: Organization ontology
Cool! Let me know when that's ready. End of the week ok? ;P lol Sent from my iPhone On 02/06/2010, at 15:47, Mike Norton xsideofparad...@yahoo.com wrote: Or, in the U.S. we could just partition a new web with top level domains reflective of the agencies and departments financed by our tax dollars. Open Gov! Michael A. Norton From: Chris Beer ch...@e-beer.net.au To: Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.com Cc: Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org; public-egov...@w3.org public-egov...@w3.org Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 10:22:12 PM Subject: Re: Organization ontology Good point! Sent from my iPhone On 02/06/2010, at 15:06, Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com wrote: We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After some checking we were unable to find an existing ontology that precisely met our needs and so developed this generic core, intended to be extensible to particular domains of use. [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html I think this is great, but I'm a little worried that a number of Western (and specifically Westminister) assumptions may have been built into it. What would be great would be to see a handful of different organisations (or portions of them) from different traditions modelled. Maybe: * The tripartite system at the top of US government, which seems pretty complex to me, with former Presidents apparently retaining some control after they leave office * The governance model of the Vatican City and Catholic Church * The Asian royalty model, in which an informal royalty commonly appears to sit above a formal constitution cheers stuart
Re: Organization ontology
Get Kurzweil to do it! Michael A. Norton From: Chris Beer ch...@e-beer.net.au To: Mike Norton xsideofparad...@yahoo.com Cc: Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.com; Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org; public-egov...@w3.org public-egov...@w3.org Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 10:49:57 PM Subject: Re: Organization ontology Cool! Let me know when that's ready. End of the week ok? ;P lol Sent from my iPhone On 02/06/2010, at 15:47, Mike Norton xsideofparad...@yahoo.com wrote: Or, in the U.S. we could just partition a new web with top level domains reflective of the agencies and departments financed by our tax dollars. Open Gov! Michael A. Norton From: Chris Beer ch...@e-beer.net.au To: Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.com Cc: Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org; public-egov...@w3.org public-egov...@w3.org Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 10:22:12 PM Subject: Re: Organization ontology Good point! Sent from my iPhone On 02/06/2010, at 15:06, Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com wrote: We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After some checking we were unable to find an existing ontology that precisely met our needs and so developed this generic core, intended to be extensible to particular domains of use. [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html I think this is great, but I'm a little worried that a number of Western (and specifically Westminister) assumptions may have been built into it. What would be great would be to see a handful of different organisations (or portions of them) from different traditions modelled. Maybe: * The tripartite system at the top of US government, which seems pretty complex to me, with former Presidents apparently retaining some control after they leave office * The governance model of the Vatican City and Catholic Church * The Asian royalty model, in which an informal royalty commonly appears to sit above a formal constitution cheers stuart
